Iraq May Be Stable, But the War Was a Mistake (Fukuyama Endorses Obama)

Wall Street Journal ^ | 8/15/2008 | Francis "the end of history" Fukuyama

[mojito]

Sometime in May 2003, shortly after U.S. forces had taken Baghdad and President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier under the banner "Mission Accomplished," an old friend remarked that he thought the war was going pretty well so far. I shook my head and said I thought we were in for trouble.

I bet him that day that Iraq would be a mess in five years' time, a mess being defined as "you'll know it when you see it." I mentioned this bet to Bret Stephens three years later. He'd reviewed my book, "America at the Crossroads" in this newspaper, accusing me, among other things, of turning against the war only when public opinion had shifted. Mr. Stephens wanted to take the wager himself. And as he wrote in his column earlier this month, I conceded that he'd won by the narrow terms of the wager.

Iraq was a mess by any definition from the fall of 2003 to the beginning of this year. It is entirely possible that it will return to being a mess in the coming months and years. But I paid $100 to Mr. Stephens because a tremendous amount of progress has been made stabilizing Iraq as a result of President Bush's surge -- which has allowed Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to establish control over Baghdad and much of southern Iraq.

Though Iraq remains a very troubled country, virtually all of the trend lines -- Iraqi and U.S. casualties, government provision of basic services, and the ability of Iraqi forces to provide order -- have been moving in a positive direction for the past year.

What I absolutely did not concede, however, was the fact that this change meant that the war itself was worth it.

[Luke21]

Fukuyama is a big wheel in the Council on Foreign Relations. I could have sworn I was reading “Foreign Affairs.”

[throwback]

That map is a roar. Do we have the technology to do that? It’s all sand anyway. Put some structure out there. Imagine the bass and walleye fishing. Oh yeah, wouldn’t be fresh water.

[Ebenezer]

No doubt about it. D’ohbama has clinched the Person-With-A-Funny-Name and Person-Who-Doesn’t-Look-Like-the-Men-on-the-Dollar-Bills votes. The Typical-White-Person vote is another matter.

[gore_sux_2000]

Excellent, well thought out and articulate post. Agree 100%!

[singfreedom]

I totally agree. My husband tells me that most of the fellows who did their duty in Korea reported there without even winter uniforms. In truth, many of the American casualties froze to death. They didn't die of battle wounds. History usually needs to be viewed in a broader context, not just the micro “now”.

In Iraq, IMHO, we eliminated MANY of those terrorists that, lacking a “closer to home” opportunity to kill Americans, would have been over here killing civilian Americans. Perhaps the cost of the Iraq War must ultimately be balanced against the cost of having several 9/11 style attacks here on our soil? When you view the monetary, and even the combat casualty, costs of the Iraq War as contrasted with what multiple terrorist attacks would have cost in life and treasure, the losses become more bearable. As my young Special Forces nephew tells me, knowing that “home” is safe makes everything worthwhile—the same thing my husband told me while he was in Vietnam.

[ASA Vet]

The oil rigs would provide stucture. Think Blue Marlin.

[ASA Vet]

The oil rigs would provide structure. Think Blue Marlin.

[Lysandru]

"If you don't believe this, ask yourself whether Congress would ever have voted to authorize the war in 2002 if it knew there was no WMD"

Gee Francis, we didn't know, did we? Then again, we have found plenty of stuff there like a few hundred tons of yellowcake and hundreds of chemical warheads from before the Gulf War that still had not been destroyed.

And let's remember what sort of bother Saddam was for his neighbors.

Putz.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

An Obama presidency would truly be "The End of History"...as we know it. Maybe a team of postmodern Japanese social theorists could explain why that would be good in managerial terms. But for whom?

The McObama world of the postmodern managerial state. But since he proposed it in Berlin how about the Obama McWelt. Sort of a post-western, post-Christian Euro-Disneyland for global socialists, global warming freaks, and aging hippie Bobos with genital issues and Blackberries. They're all busy text-messaging or splicing up their own embryos as they are invaded from the Middle East.

[cookcounty]

Remind me again: Before Bush was sworn in, Clinton, Gore, Albright, Sandy Berger and Mrs. Clinton all said Saddam had WMD and intended to use them.

If Bush lied about WMD, it was a lie he was guilty of repeating, but the Democrats were guilty of creating.

[driftless2]

"his sons"

What I've never seen analized is a post-Saddam Iraq if he had been allowed to stay in power. Saddam was almost seventy and according to some sources becoming more unhinged. I would surmise that he planned for one his equally vile sons to take over on his death. But I wonder if either would have had the ability to maintain an iron grip on Iraq? They might have been more amenable to Al-Qaeda since Zarkawi was already allowed to operated within the country.

[lepton]

is all for "soft power"

Soft power only works if there is the threat of hard power behind it. Neither is an exclusive solution.

If our enemies believed we could exercise hard power again, we'd be able to be a whole lot gentler with countries like Iran that we are likely to end up having to be.

[lepton]

I happen to agree with him to an extent about Iraq not being the right war,

Not enforcing the terms of the ceasefire was a worldwide foreign affairs and national security disaster, and by early 1995 not enacting regime change became inexcusable.

You can only argue that it wasn't the right war if you forget what was happening throughout the Middle-east, swaths of Asia, and northern and eastern Africa.

What happened with Libya alone made the Iraq re-engagement worth it several times over...though I would also contend things in Iraq would have been much cheaper if we didn't have a major party rooting for our defeat and otherwise encouraging our enemies to stay in it until they can get in power.

[lepton]

In the future if we go to war, we need to expect 40% of our population and 80% or our mass media to support the other side, no matter how repugnant they may be. Until we can get a handle on that, we will be fighting with both hands tied behind our backs.

Amen.

[PISANO]

Leftists about Iraq:

Iraq has WMD!

Iraq will use WMD!

Iraq had no WMD!

We are losing!

We can’t win!

The surge won’t work!

The surge is working!

We may win!!

We WON but it wasn’t worth it!!

[lepton]

They also found over 500 chemical munitions. Hardly "No WMDS".

There's another logical problem...not only did we not find the WMDs we thought he had, but we also didn't find most of what we KNEW (as in put hands on, inventoried and took samples) he had.

[WOSG]

Iraq was a victory worth fighting for:

1. In early 2003, 4 coutnries were pursuing WMDs. Today, we are down to one potential danger (Iran) on WMD front.

2. Terrorism: AQ came to play in Iraq, and lost. by fighting there, we took out the heart of AQ spirit and key fighters like Zarqawi. Better we fight there than here.

3. Draining the swamp of despotism: The long-range solution to muslim extremism is the construction of stable democratic nations in the muslim world. Iraq is a very good start.

The Iraq war, history will show, will be in our long-range national security interest. We have one a key victory in ridding the world of rogue regimes that pursue WMDs and support terrorism.

[WOSG]

I agree that the domestic political costs to the Republican Party were, are, substantial. My response is only that this is what patriots do: they sacrifice their self-interest to do what is right for the country, and let history sort out the rest.

Bingo. You do the right thing. If you cant do that in power you never deserved to win in the first place. And no, the Democrats should be kicked out of power for a generation for their horrible behavior in trying to undermine the Iraq policy and lose the war we just won, but thats one reason I'm not a Democrat.

[Cacique]

btt

[Eagles6]

There's another logical problem...not only did we not find the WMDs we thought he had, but we also didn't find most of what we KNEW (as in put hands on, inventoried and took samples) he had.

Yep. We can believe, as the left wants us to, that he destroyed them in the desert and forgot where. I believe that they still exist in syria, lebanon, iran and buried in iraq.